Ex parte GAULL - Page 4




                 Appeal No. 95-3337                                                                                                                     
                 Application No. 07/759,100                                                                                                             


                          All of the claims on appeal stand rejected under 35                                                                           
                 U.S.C.  § 103 as being unpatentable over Müeller in view of                                                                            
                 Lindblad and further in view of Raiha and Friend and the                                                                               
                 Biotechnology article.                  2                                                                                              


                          2In the body of the Answer, the examiner also refers to                                                                       
                 certain portions of the subject specification which she                                                                                
                 implies represent admitted prior art.  For example, on page 6                                                                          
                 of the answer in discussing the here-claimed recombinant human                                                                         
                 virus-free human milk protein, the examiner states:                                                                                    
                 "Appellant has apparently not developed these proteins, but is                                                                         
                 substituting them for known human milk proteins to make a                                                                              
                 humanized milk product.  See page[s] 7-10 of appellant[']s                                                                             
                 specification for known genetically engineered proteins"                                                                               
                 (emphasis added).  However, it is well settled that, where                                                                             
                 prior art is relied on to support a rejection, there would                                                                             
                 appear to be no excuse for not positively including the prior                                                                          
                 art in the statement of rejection.  In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341,                                                                         
                 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970).  As a                                                                                     
                 consequence, we will assess the examiner's conclusion of                                                                               
                 obviousness based solely upon the above-noted prior art                                                                                
                 references which are positively included in the examiner's                                                                             
                 statement of rejection.  The examiner's aforementioned                                                                                 
                 referrals to the subject specification in support of her                                                                               
                 obviousness conclusion are additionally inappropriate because                                                                          
                 the record before us is considerably unclear as to                                                                                     
                 specifically what portions of the specification disclosure,                                                                            
                 including those portions which discuss recombinant human milk                                                                          
                 protein of the type here claimed, represent subject matter                                                                             
                 known in the prior art.  This last mentioned point is                                                                                  
                 reinforced by the examiner's use of the aforequoted term                                                                               
                 "apparently."  We here emphasize that a rejection under 35                                                                             
                 U.S.C. § 103 must rest on a factual basis rather than                                                                                  
                 conjecture, speculation or assumption.  In re Warner, 379 F.2d                                                                         
                 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178, cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057                                                                             
                 (1968).                                                                                                                                
                                                                           4                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007